Evidence map›Paper›PMID 41093343›Full record

ArticleBMJ open2025

Community advisory boards to inform behavioural health research in primary care: protocol for a scoping review.

Katherine A McDermott, Clara C Vonderheide, Alexandria E Cronin, Ana-Maria Vranceanu, Evan Plys

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in BMJ open, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
0citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

0 citing papers in PubMed.

No citing paper in PubMed yet.

4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

5 authors.

Katherine A McDermottDepartment of Psychiatry, Massachusetts General Hospital, Boston, Massachusetts, USA.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0002-9269-1819
Clara C VonderheideDepartment of Psychiatry, Massachusetts General Hospital, Boston, Massachusetts, USA.
Alexandria E CroninHarvard University Countway Library, Boston, Massachusetts, USA.
Ana-Maria VranceanuDepartment of Psychiatry, Massachusetts General Hospital, Boston, Massachusetts, USA avranceanu@mgh.harvard.edu.
Evan PlysDepartment of Psychiatry, Massachusetts General Hospital, Boston, Massachusetts, USA.

Funding

Addressing the chronic pain epidemic among older adults in underserved community center; The GetActive+ study (McDermott-Career Enhancement Supplement)R61AG081034 · NIA · MASSACHUSETTS GENERAL HOSPITAL · PI RITCHIE, CHRISTINE S, VRANCEANU, ANA-MARIA · 2022 to 2023
$1.7M
Mentoring in technology enhanced mind body and lifestyle interventionsK24AT011760 · NCCIH · MASSACHUSETTS GENERAL HOSPITAL · PI Ana-Maria Vranceanu · 2022 to 2026
$911k
Building Resilience In SKilled nursing facilities (BRISK): Development and Pilot Testing of a Dyadic Intervention for Psychological Distress in Post-Acute Skilled Nursing CareK23AG078410 · NIA · MASSACHUSETTS GENERAL HOSPITAL · PI Evan Plys · 2023 to 2026
$775k
Pain Disengagement Training: A self-directed intervention for pain catastrophizingK23AT012789 · NCCIH · MASSACHUSETTS GENERAL HOSPITAL · PI Katherine McDermott · 2024 to 2026
$512k
NCCIH NIH HHS K23 AT012789NCCIH NIH HHS K24 AT011760NIA NIH HHS K23 AG078410NIA NIH HHS R61 AG081034
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

introductionMost patients receive behavioural healthcare (BH) in a primary care setting, yet much of the BH research was not developed to account for eventual implementation. Areas of research and intervention that are considered priorities to patients may be absent from our existing knowledge base. Engaging the community in the research process can facilitate translation and uptake. A key strategy for community engagement is to employ a Community Advisory Board (CAB). CABs can assist in a number of research processes, including guiding research questions to fit the priorities of the community and creating research materials that are tailored to the patient population and healthcare setting. There is variability in practices and reporting standards for CABs. The field would benefit from a summary of the state of the current literature on CAB utilisation for BH research in primary care. To fill this gap, we will conduct a scoping review to answer the question, 'What is known about the use of CABs in behavioural health studies in primary care?'. METHODS AND ANALYSIS: We will use the guidelines for scoping reviews outlined by Arksey and O'Malley: (1) identifying the research question; (2) identifying relevant studies; (3) study selection; (4) charting the data and (5) collating, summarising and reporting the results. Our reporting of the results will be guided by the Arnos and colleagues Toolkit for Project-Based Community Advisory Boards, a set of practical guidelines for employing a CAB. To this end, we will report on how well CABs currently employed in BH primary care research match existing guidelines and what gaps need to be filled by future research. ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION: This review does not require ethics board approval, as no patient data will be collected. We will disseminate findings primarily through journal publications and conference presentations. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER: This scoping review protocol was registered on the Open Science Framework (https://osf.io/pa3rz/?view_only=31c558eb395a4a9482ee9c5b57ca1c4c).

Indexed as

Advisory CommitteesBehavioral ResearchCommunity ParticipationPrimary Health CareHumansResearch DesignScoping Reviews as TopicCommunity ParticipationMENTAL HEALTHPrimary Health Care

Identifiers

PMID41093343
PMCPMC12530386

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.